RE: As built drawing of pe pipeline.

Due to the basic and general nature of PIDs in describing what is to be constructed, with minimal attention to field specific details, their lack of linear dimensional information and other vendor specific equipment information, it might be rather unusual for PIDs to require field updates, but it is not unheard of. The underlaying idea of making as-build drawings is to have all drawings match whatever was finaly constructed, so really any drawing that needs to be changed specifically because of modifications made in the field, or actually at any time since they were released for construction, could be "As-Built" drawings.

"I am sure it can be done. I've seen it on the internet." BigInch's favorite client.

RE: As built drawing of pe pipeline.

You're generally going to want someone a bit more experienced with pipe than the average surveyor. The object is more to get the right wall thickness and diameters, the valve types and locations, the fittings, vents and drains, modified piping, weld joint records, actuators and other equipment shown correctly, not just their locations.

The pipe material should make very little difference, at least much less difference than letting a surveyor do it would.

"I am sure it can be done. I've seen it on the internet." BigInch's favorite client.

RE: As built drawing of pe pipeline.

Sorry terminology is difficult. I have the surveyors layout plan and a schematic (P&ID) and I need an example of what a drafter would produce doing as built drawing from these for manufacture and the customer. Thanks

RE: As built drawing of pe pipeline.

BigInch, As you say P&ID's are devoid of dimensions and piping details, however once came across a Project Manager who asked for an accurate Material Takeoff to be done from a P&ID.He could not understand why this was not possible. They live and work among us!!!!

RE: As built drawing of pe pipeline.

I didn't mean to imply that PIDs are not important to show as built, in fact, just the opposite. They are so important to have them accurately shown that basically I never trust the contractor to do that job. They should be in perfect condition when AFC, with any minor alterations thereafter being done by the in-house engineer (hopefully there is at least one). Since dimensional data is the most likely form of data that needs to be changed in the field, its just that much more unlikely that changing PIDs will form a large part of the As-Built scope of work.

DSB123, Right! "Men In Black" is closer to the truth than most realize .

"I am sure it can be done. I've seen it on the internet." BigInch's favorite client.

RE: As built drawing of pe pipeline.

Well this is a new design so I think when they say as built drawing they mean construction drawings, I have the surveyors P&IDs and wall thickness and diameters, the valve types and locations, the fittings, vents and drains, modified piping, weld joint records, actuators and other equipment. I believe all they need is the manufacturing details. Has anyone done these?? I have done it before but too many years ago (I'm not old!!).

RE: As built drawing of pe pipeline.

In this forum, rightly or wrongly, we usually assume PID mean Piping and Instrumentation Diagrams, so we (I) don't get what surveyors (land surveyors?) are doing with those, because PIDs do not (usually) have any linear dimensions at all on them.

General Arrangements will most likely not need any, or maybe a little work.

If the surveyors have done any as-built work, then I would guess that they have located the pipeline's features according to MP or KP (mile post, kilometer post) stations and elevations, and/or perhaps GPS coordinates. I wouldn't trust them for anything else. All piping features and equipment should be verified as-built, in place by someone that understands piping.

Piping Plans will most probably need as-built info markups and correction. All information joint features, tees, valves, diameters, wall thicknesses, class factors, materials should be tied back to their exact locations as they have been shown on the drawings, dimensions and any other differences corrected. In other words, correct all the drawings and information so that all dimensions and actually all information is shown EXACTLY WHAT was built and WHERE.

If your scope of work is only for the equipment, or one piece of equipment, then you must verify only the equipment drawings and their information, otherwise you should be prepared to do all the above.

"I am sure it can be done. I've seen it on the internet." BigInch's favorite client.

RE: As built drawing of pe pipeline.

I think you are confusing alignment sheets and P&ID's. The alignment sheets are the P&ID's for a pipeline and they include X,Y,Z axis dimensional information. At valve sites they will contain P&ID's like those stainer pointed too.

Alignment sheets have what Amanda pointed out along with land ownership and geotechnical data such as water, sack breaker use, high consequence areas, etc.

RE: As built drawing of pe pipeline.

I am from the water sector and perhaps a bit off from petroleum. We use the term as-build for the final drawings that are prepared based on the constructed item. So if there is an update after the first drawing, we call it a revision (or even shop drawings, due the term might not apply correctly) but not the as-built. For me as-build is always after the construction and the final drawing.

@Amanda: As-builts could be for any structure but when talking about the transmission pipelines, then they are in the form of the alignment sheets, including coordinates, levels, material, lining, coating, thicknesses, etc of the pipeline. So you can say that they are plan and profile drawings based on the constructed state. Land surveyors would only provide the spatial data but the rest is done by a technician (engineer) by feeding data to the drawings. You can have as build drawings for other items in a pipeline project such as valve chamber as-builds. P&ID is something different. it's Piping & instruments and BigInch and others defined it well. In the projects that I've worked, I've never heard of as-builds for P&ID but "final" P&ID. As-builds always have a dimensional perspective for me which P&IDs don't.

RE: As built drawing of pe pipeline.

Thanks waterpipe, I now have the surveyors drawings. this is for a dewatering system at a local mine site, there is some instrumentation but I think when they say they need as-builts they do mean dimensional layouts for the pipeline itself.

does anyone have an example of a dimensional layout for a pipeline? this would help me know where to start.

Many thanks for all the help.

RE: As built drawing of pe pipeline.

You would perhaps find more information nowadays searching for examples with terms like "Record Drawings", "Drawings of Record", or "Drawings for Record" etc. (e.g. http://www.dallascityhall.com/dwu/pdf/PipelineDrafting_standards_oct2010.pdf). This is probably for good reason or that such stamps sound more formal or authoritative than "as-builts". I suspect different authorities have some different requirements for what all should be shown on there "record" drawings, but I suspect it is certainly a good idea to at least know details of the pipe and service, and with as good reference points and as close three-dimensional accuracy as practical where they (and maybe importance even particularly when they are non-metallic) were originally installed!

RE: As built drawing of pe pipeline.

In the past, as-builts have often been ignored (I've worked at older refineries trying to track down drawings for existing facilities) and sometimes the "as-builting" gets forgotten somewhere down the line or when the money runs out.

After you talk to an older onsite operator or two, you find out, "Oh, that change was made because we needed a jumpover to provide A to B, so we did it on maintenance budget. It's never been a problem." At that point you start to wonder what else is not documented.

I'm hoping that cheaper laser/cloud scanning of existing facilities will correct this eventually.

In my experience there's nothing worse than not knowing what's in your plant when you go out looking at it.

Since the later 1980s, manufacturing companies have seen over 3 percent in labor output year on year, with most of this productivty enhancement occuring because of the optimization of repetitive tasks. Download Now